I hope they're right but the position that a required Brady disclosure didn't happen is questionable. Brady is widely held by the US courts to require disclosure of facts that would be exculpatory. And it's also widely held that Brady doesn't require disclosure of contrary legal opinions or disclosures. The way I read the article is that they consulted FinCEN, FinCEN said they have a weak case, and they prosecuted anyway ie FinCEN provided a contrary legal opinion. The article doesn't mention evidence that might support the Samourai defendants not having deployed the code or something along those lines. Maybe there are some ethical violations or that sways a jury, but I've got long odds on dismissal due to Brady violations. Hopefully they get some of the recent Ross treatment.